JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Seven Petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 511C of 1984, Tr. No. 363 of 2006 including the order dated 8.5.2007 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah (West Champaran), whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition filed by the Petitioners. 2. Short fact of the case is that in the year 1984, Opp. Party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah ( West Champaran) , which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 511 C of 1984 on an allegation of commission of offences under Sections 147, 379 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged by the complainant that the Petitioners had forcibly taken his Tyre-Cart. The complainant was illegally detained also. It was disclosed that the complainant had suffered a loss of Rs. 3400/- After filing of the complaint, an enquiry was conducted and thereafter on 15.2.1986, cognizance order was passed. Subsequently on 11.3.1992, discharge petition was rejected, which was challenged by the Petitioners before this Court vide Cr. Revision No. 101 of 1992. Cr. Revision was disposed of granting liberty to the Petitioners to raise all the points at the appropriate stage under the provision of Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the order dated 11.5.1992 passed by this Court in Cr. Revision No. 101 of 1992, the prayer for discharge of the Petitioners was considered by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah and the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate discharged the Petitioners. After the order of discharge, the complainant preferred a revision vide Cr. Revision No. 229 of 1993, which was allowed by learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge and the case was again remitted back to the court below to hear the parties afresh and pass appropriate order. After the case was remitted back by the impugned order i.e. 8.5.2007, the learned Magistrate at second stage has rejected the discharge petition. 3. Aggrieved with the order dated 8.5.2007, whereby the discharge petition of the petitioners was rejected, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4. After the case was remitted back by the impugned order i.e. 8.5.2007, the learned Magistrate at second stage has rejected the discharge petition. 3. Aggrieved with the order dated 8.5.2007, whereby the discharge petition of the petitioners was rejected, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4. Sri Sanjay Kumar-7, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners at the very outset submits that Petitioner No. 1 and the complainant are own cousin and the dispute in respect of Tyre-Cart in between the Petitioner No. 1 and the complainant was continuing since long. It has been submitted that earlier in the year 1982 , Petitioner No. 1 had filed a complaint against the Petitioners on an allegation of dishonestly keeping his tyre-cart and other equipments, which was subsequently referred to the police and an F.I.R. vide Majhaulia P.S. Case No. 81 of 1982 was registered against the complainant and others. It has further been submitted that on one occasion the Petitioners were discharged by the learned Magistrate after noticing the fact that the Petitioners had produced the papers relating to Tyre-Cart and at subsequent stage, the learned Magistrate, while rejecting the discharge petition has completely reversed his earlier observation and it was indicated that the complainant had produced papers relating to purchase of the tyre-cart. Accordingly, it has been submitted that at two subsequent stages, the learned Magistrate has passed contradictory orders. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has mainly submitted that the Petitioners have already suffered a lot due to pendency of the proceeding since 1984 that too on allegation of committing trivial offence. Accordingly, it has been prayed that it is a glaring case of infringement of right of the speedy trial and infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. On the ground of pendency of the case for such a long period, it has been submitted that allowing the prosecution at this stage will amount to allowing the abuse of the process of the court and, as such, it has been prayed to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 5. Sri Manoj Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf Opp. Party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the Petitioners. Learned Counsel for Opp. 5. Sri Manoj Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf Opp. Party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the Petitioners. Learned Counsel for Opp. Party No. 2 has submitted that the case, which has been registered on the basis of complaint filed by Petitioner No. 1, was finally found untrue during the investigation and, as such, the present complaint was filed rightly against the Petitioners. Accordingly, it has been prayed to reject the present petition. 6. I have also heard Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 7. Besides hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. From the record, it appears that Petitioner No. 1 and the complainant (Opp. Party No. 2) are cousin. However, it has been disputed by learned Counsel for Opp. Party No. 2. Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners after being controverted by Sri Manoj Kumar, learned Counsel for Opp. Party No. 2 has referred to Annexure-3 to the petition, i.e. F.I.R. of Majhaulia P.S. Case No. 81 of 1982. It has been submitted that in the F.I.R.itself, it has been categorically stated that Petitioner No. 1 and Opp. Party No. 2 were cousin. The Court is of the opinion that once the Petitioners were discharged by order dated 1.9.1993 on the ground that Petitioner No. 1 had produced relevant document in respect of ownership of tyre-cart in question, there was no reason for the learned Magistrate to record contrary findings while rejecting the discharge petition. Moreover, the allegations made in the complaint petition have occurred in the month of January, 1984 and the matter is still pending since then. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances as indicated above, the Court is of the opinion that allowing prosecution of the Petitioners in the present case will amount to allowing the abuse the process of the court and, as such, it is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the Petitioners. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 8.5.2007 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah (West Champaran) in Complaint Case No. 511C of 1984 and entire criminal proceeding in the said case is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed.